Digg/Buzz It Up

POLITICO 44

Bob Woodward’s Monday-morning exclusive on a 66-page report from Gen. Stanley McChrystal to President Barack Obama about Afghanistan policy was a rite of passage for the new administration: the first major national security leak and a sure sign that the celebrated Washington Post reporter has penetrated yet another administration.

White House officials greeted the leak with a grimace, but none suggested they’d begin a witch hunt for the leaker. Woodward is famous for his access to the principals themselves — he recently traveled to Afghanistan with National Security Adviser James Jones — and leak hunters couldn’t expect with confidence that they’d find themselves disciplining just an undisciplined junior staffer.

But inside the White House and out, the leak touched off another familiar Washington ritual: speculation about the leaker’s identity and motives.

This is a capital parlor game that, for the Obama administration, has some dire implications. Unless the West Wing somehow orchestrated an elaborate head fake — authorizing what looks at first blush like an intolerable breach of Obama’s internal deliberations — the Woodward story suggests deeper problems for a new president than a bad news cycle.

Woodward — like other reporters, only more so — tends to shake loose information when he can exploit policy conflicts within an administration. There is now a big one over a critical national security decision, along with evidence that some people who ostensibly work for Obama feel they can pressure him with impunity. It took several years within former President George W. Bush’s administration before deep personal and policy fissures became visible.

So who did it?

The simplest theory — and one most administration officials Monday were endorsing — is that a military or civilian Pentagon official who supports McChrystal’s policy put it out in an attempt to pressure Obama to follow McChrystal’s suggestion and increase troop levels in Afghanistan.

But not everyone in Washington is a believer in Occam’s razor, so all manner of other theories flourished.

There are believers in the reverse leak, in which the leak itself is meant to damage McChrystal’s position by inducing White House anger at the general. There’s the fake leak, in which the White House may have been trying to back itself into a corner. A former government official with ties to the Pentagon said the talk in the building was that a senior military official had given it to the reporter for his book on the Obama White House — not realizing it could end up in print sooner.

“That places the ball clearly in the president’s court,” former Clinton Defense Secretary William Cohen said, noting that Obama had already publicly placed his trust in McChrystal’s judgment.

“It’s an effort — whether by [McChrystal] or by somebody in the Pentagon or maybe the White House — to say, ‘You’ve asked the military to give you not what you want to hear but what you have to know. Now it’s up to you as commander in chief to decide if you think you have a better idea.’”

The leak is a shot across the bows, he said, of Vice President Joe Biden and of leading congressional Democrats who oppose a buildup in Afghanistan.

Another Clinton veteran with experience in national security matters was not so sure, however, that Obama wasn’t helped by a piece that lays the public ground for an inevitable troop escalation. “This thing has to have some airing and consideration by the public — so in the tactical sense, there’s a benefit to considering it,” the official said.

But some said all this speculation may be overthinking the matter. Many people in Washington, after all, are motivated by personal vanities as much as by policy convictions.

“It’s most likely someone who has or is cultivating a personal relationship with Bob Woodward and positioning himself to look good in Woodward’s next book,” said Matt Bennett, vice president at the Democratic-leaning think tank Third Way, echoing the views of many inside government and out.

Readers' Comments (1636)

How about..........so who cares? The messiah wants to have his cake and eat it too. If this report was not made public, he would be telling us how this campaign has his full support and we would be unable to validate this one way or another. It's all about the game of perception, media spin, and finding out how many dopes enjoy Kool-Aid. Welcome to Chicago-style thug politics.

Now that his top generals have made the case for increased troop levels, he's faced with an interesting choice: appease the lunatic liberals that line his pockets.....................or finish what he promised. There is no running from this one.

He didn't know what was is in HR3200, he doesn't understand the definition of taxes, and the cap and trade estimates weren't even close. I've heard of politicians playing stupid, but we're starting to see how some really are.

How Stupid Is It For The Above Post To Blame Obama (Voted Against That Iraq War -Which Claimed The Bulk of Young Lives) and How Stupid To Say That - "Have A Strategy, Have An Exit Plan" is a Lack of Leadership?

Who cares about the Leak? We Do Care About "Having An Exit Strategy" Having A Reason To Spill Our National-Blood-Treasure!"

Thanks to Our Duly Elected President Obama= we shall be there for a "Well Defined Mission!"

I don't recall Politico's rabid curiosity when George W. Bush's White House was unraveled by leaks inside Homeland Security, the Pentagon, NSA, CIA, FBI, etc. Could it be, there is still an anti-socialist American patriot wandering around Washington? God bless them.

It was Bush's fault. But nothing ever happens to leakers. They become celebrated and supported by whichever movement wasn't involved and the cycle rolls on. If they are journalists wouldn't the most appropriate punisment be relegation to a thursdy shopper in east overshoe for the rest of their lives? What ever their motives they show a distinct lack of honor or respect.

If it was a pol, the offender might be offered a road commissioner position near the Mexican border. If it was a bureaucrat they will be shuttled to another office awaiting a new GS level. Not much justice in DC is there. DOJ has some political axes to grind.

WASHINGTON – Sen. John McCain said he wants the military leadership in Afghanistan to use the same aggressive approach that Gen. David Petraeus used successfully in Iraq.

The Arizona Republican said Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal should say exactly how many troops he needs in Afghanistan, let the Congress debate it and President Barack Obama would make the ultimate decision.

Troops in Afghanistan should "clear and hold" an environment for people so that economic and political progress can be made, he said. McCain said he worries McChrystal will be pressured to ask for lower troop totals than he needs.

"I don't think it's necessarily from the president," he said. "I think it's from the people around him and others and that I think don't want to see a significant increase in our troops' presence there."

On the question of what it will take to turn the tide in Afghanistan, McCain said: "I think within a year to 18 months you could start to see progress."

"We're facing a very determined enemy that will stand and fight in some instances that are very adaptable, and obviously with safe havens in Pakistan," he said. "But as the president described it in the campaign, this is a good war and one that we have to win. And I think he'll hold to that."

McCain acknowledged that public opinion on Afghanistan is slipping. But he said that opinion could be reversed.

Was it planned for the report to be leaked the day President Obama goes on David Letterman? To have a report that is so serious and in ernest sitting on Obama's desk for so weeks while Operation Enduring Freedom is currently underway and our Military men and women are in harms ways tells me alot abot Obama's character-or lack of it because Letterman came first. I am sure the White House would say Obama is multi tasking...but lives are at stake here are they not?

Who cares? This is the self serving, self policing, partisan corruption we know as our (bought and paid for by the highest national or international bidder) government. Nobody will do a damn thing about it!

This I can tell you...Obama hasn't a clue what to do. He has a history of voting "present" on many issues. He voted the wrong way on the Iraq surge. He will wait for one of his crony czars to tell him what to say and do. They will figure out the best way to use our military as a political tool.

I usually post on the AOL Political Daily, and I got into an arguement with someone who couldn't believe my claims that almost 3 out of 4 comments here are Republican or Indenpendants. So he came over here and looked and found I was right, we dont hear much from him any more. But back to the subject at hand, Amerika, you are correct, no one will do a thing about it!